The concept of Centre(s) of Gravity and the Crécy Campaign

 

       I.            Introduction

The concept of center of gravity (COG) is one that was developed by the Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz. It seeks to ensure that there is the effective development of an understanding of the manner that the strengths and weaknesses of military actors end up predicting their freedom of action on the battlefield.[1] Consequently, the COG is considered to be a source of strength when it comes to the military strategy. Therefore, it becomes essential to make sure that there is the promotion of an understanding of COGs as a means of attaining success on the battlefield. This concept is pertinent because it provides an insight into the manner that military strategies are able to undertake a diversity of missions based on the understanding of the way that strategy is applied by the enemy. As an essential aspect of military strategy, the COG is important in bringing about an effective conduct of campaigns in a manner that does not strain the military capabilities of the force involved.

An example of such a strategy can be seen in the Crecy campaign during the Hundred Years War, which was conducted by the English army under Edward III, throughout the north of France. The main objective of this campaign was to ensure that this region was so devastated that the king of France, Philip VI, would be forced to take the field in a battle that would decide who gained dominance over a considerable part of the country.  It is one of the most famous campaigns of the medieval period which saw the landing of English forces in Normandy and the devastation of a considerable part of the duchy prior to the capitulation of the French king Philip VI in Calais after eighteen months. The use of strategy in the war by Edward III is significant because it allowed for the achievement of the outcome. It is therefore pertinent to ensure that there is the understanding of the base of power (COG) in a manner that its movement is what determines the outcomes of conflict. In this way, the presence of the COG is significant in showing the way that the Crecy campaign ended up in Edward III’s favor based on the way that he took advantage of it. This paper seeks to determine how strategic actors determine COGs and the way that they assist in the analysis of the Crecy Campaign through a consideration of COG based on the Eikmeier method, Butler’s Godzilla COG determination method, and the critical factors analysis method.

    II.            Eikmeier Method

The Eikmeier methodology is one that makes the proposal that the COG is the main entity when it comes to the attainment of the objectives that an actor has set for itself.[2] This can be seen in the manner that in preparation for a field battle, a force led by Edward the Black Prince, Edward III’s eldest son, was tasked with torching as many towns and villages within the Seine Valley in France.[3] The latter strategy was aimed at making sure that there was the attainment of multiple objectives including providing food for the English army, striking terror into the locals, the acquisition of loot as well as noble prisoners, and finally, to ensure that the economic base of the French opponents was severely weakened. In this way, it would be extremely difficult for the French to be able to field a formidable army against the invading English, which would essentially accomplish Edward III’s goal of attaining the expansion of his territory in France. However, the main target of this strategy was forcing Philip VI of France to take the field against the English army as a means of making sure that a decisive battle was fought. Therefore, Edward III’s COG in this case was that it his capacity to attain all the objectives that he had set for himself prior to the Crecy campaign. The campaign was a means to an end which ensured that there was the promotion of a scenario where the enemy was forced into taking actions that would be advantageous to Edward III and the English.

The identification of a COG is a process that involves six essential steps. The first of these is that it is necessary to ensure that the desired ends or objectives of an actor are identified. For Edward III, the war in France was critical because it allowed him to expand his territory while at the same time rejecting the suzerainty of the French king over his holdings in France.[4] Moreover, Edward aimed at making sure that he pressed his claim to the French throne through his mother, Isabella, who was the daughter of Philip IV of France. The desired end was to ensure that he gained a considerable hold on as much territory as possible in France and if the situation allowed, claim the French throne for himself by right of descent from Philip IV, his maternal grandfather. Moreover, he wanted to ensure that he maintained control and secured his holdings in Gascony, which were threatened by the French king. Therefore, the actions that he undertook during the Crecy campaign were to make sure that he enhanced his hold over France. He divided his forces into three, with the first going south to protect Gascony, the second smaller force aimed at tackling the main French force, while the third landed in Normandy and sought to create as much devastation as possible to ensure that the French king was forced to take the field.[5] The significance of this situation cannot be underestimated because it started with Edward III being in a very strong position since he had the advantage of having firm objectives which were carried out during the Crecy campaign. The devastation of large parts of Normandy ensured that the attention of the French king was gained while at the same time allowing the English force to gain considerable food supplies as well as loot which went to funding the campaign.

Another significant aspect that needs to be considered is the way that the actor involved aims at achieving his specific objectives. This is important because it ensures that there is the consideration of the critical capabilities so that effective identification and targeting can be achieved. The manner through which Edward III conducted the Crecy campaign is significant because he took advantage of the relative weakness of the French as well as the considerable organization and efficiency of the English tax collection system in a manner that proved favorable.[6] By undertaking the campaign of devastation against the French, especially in northern France, Edward III was essentially making sure that his rival did not have the economic base which could be used to fight an extensive war against him. He prevented an effective French counteroffensive through the use of fear and economic warfare; bringing about the destruction of the economy in the regions where his forces were present. The importance of the campaign can therefore be seen through the way that Edward III made use of his capabilities to weaken his enemy in preparation to attaining a victory that would have allowed him to gain the objectives of his presence in France. The targeting of the French civilian population and the terror that was inflicted by the English forces of Edward III allowed for the prevention of an effective French response to the English invasion; including the collection of much needed taxes, which for the French civilian population had become virtually permanent.[7] Instead, the center of gravity was on the side of the English, which ensured that their actions were critical to destroying their enemies.

Another factor to consider is the means through which the critical capabilities of the actor are executed are identified. This is a process that was put in place during the Crecy campaign because the original plan of action involved Edward III dividing his forces into three in order to more effectively take on the French.[8] Thus, despite having a smaller force than that of the French, Edward III was able to take more decisive action through the process of effective planning that was undertaken through the use of spies in France as well as planning for the manner through which his army would move and be supplied for the entire venture. The victories that the English had were therefore based on previous planning, which had taken place prior to the beginning of the campaign. The Crecy campaign was the result of long term planning on the part of Edward III in response to the French moves against his holdings in France, which resulted in a scenario where he was forced to act in order to defend his interests. Therefore, the critical capabilities of the English seem to have been analyzed and executed accordingly because Edward III had the leisure to plan his campaign as effectively as possible prior to undertaking it. The same cannot be said of the French, who seem to have been forced to counter the moves made by the English. However, countering strategies that were not wholly known meant that the French response was reactionary to such an extent that it was not as effective as it should have been.

Moreover, there is the need to ensure that there is a listing of the means that is possessed by the entity to ensure that it effectively achieves the ends that it has created. This is a significant process because it is one that involves the development of a scenario where the planning process is based on the means of the entity involved to conduct the campaigned aimed at attaining its objectives. In the case of the Crecy campaign, Edward III took advantage of the various strengths possessed by England as a means of conducting the battles that were fought against the French. The force that was put on the field, for example, possessed longbows, which were highly effective against the French forces, which relied more on crossbows.[9] The crossbow took longer to set and fire while the English longbow took a shorter time, meaning that the latter was more devastating than the latter. It is also important to note that the English were focused more on ensuring that there was the promotion of a scenario where the French were incapable of launching a more formidable resistance. This meant that Edward III took advantage of the more unified English taxation and governing system as well as a bigger tax base than that of the king of France, as seen through the addition of Wales, in creating a massive financial base that could sustain the war for longer.[10] The same cannot be said of Philip VI, who did not fully control all of France and had an extremely difficult time finding recruits for his army because he did not have enough funds to pay them due to the economic warfare being conducted by the English.

Additionally, in order for there to be a counter to the COG, it is essential for the actors involved to consider the most critical elements for the execution of the enemy forces capabilities. The determination of enemy capabilities ensures that an actor is able to not only counter them, but do so decisively. The Crecy campaign is therefore critical on this front because it allows for an assessment of the way that the French forces were able to use their intelligence of English operations in the process of planning their counterattacks. In the Crecy campaign, Edward III made use of a similar troop formation that had won him considerable success against the Scots at Halidon Hill.[11] This formation allowed the English archers to make use of the longbow effectively in a manner that helped them knock off French knights from their horses. Furthermore, the arrows were powerful enough to pierce their armor, meaning that the French knights could be struck from multiple directions at the same time. It is essential to consider that the power, range and accuracy of the English longbow played a significant role in allowing for an English victory during the Crecy campaign. In addition, the English forces had an advantage since they were more experienced than their numerically superior counterparts to such an extent that they had greater discipline from their years of fighting in Wales and Scotland.[12] This proved to be an added advantage because it ensured that the English forces could perform better in a battle than their counterparts.

The identification of the critical requirements that pose a vulnerability to the actions of adversaries is important. It allows for a consideration of the way that adversaries are likely to respond to planned actions and provides for the development of strategy concerning how best to counter any moves by the enemy. It is because of a consideration of such strategy during the Crecy campaign that Edward III was able to ensure that he led his forces to victory against a larger force. Thus, while there is a dispute in the number of troops that participated in the battle of Crecy, the English army was considerably smaller, with Edward III probably having only fielded 12000 men against the French army of 25000 men.[13] The English therefore sought to gain the upper hand through positioning themselves on a small rise overlooking the River Maie. Furthermore, the English troops were split into three divisions while the flanks of the army were protected by marshy ground and forest, on one hand, and the village of Wadicourt on the other. Thus, the French were forced into a scenario where they not only had to narrow their lines, but also attack uphill. The English made the situation even more difficult for their French counterparts through having holes dug into the open ground at the front of their lines; greatly hampering movement.

 III.            Butler’s Godzilla COG Determination Approach

The Godzilla approach is one that shows considerable simplicity because its main purpose is to ensure that there is the determination of the strategic goal of the force that is being analyzed.[14] The major goal of Edward III during the Crecy campaign was to secure his territory in France and to ensure that he expanded as much as possible in France in order to gain the upper hand over the French king Philip VI. The result of the situation was that there was an active attempt on the part of Edward III to ensure that he reduced the number of COGs in the campaign and only worked with a minimum of them. He attained this objective by maintaining a study of the French moves and seeking to counter them as effectively as possible in order to enhance his advantage on the field. The significance of this move can be seen through the way that Edward III employed the limited resources he had to gain the upper hand over his French counterpart. He concentrated his forces in those areas that were absolutely necessary, such taking the upper ground, and forced the French to come against the English and right into a hail of arrows, which proved very devastating to the French. In this way, Edward was able to gain the advantage on the battlefield to such an extent that following the Battle of Crecy, he had gained more territory in France than he had held when he launched the campaign.

The Godzilla COG determination approach is also one that seeks to discover the objectives that have to be met in order to achieve the goals that have been set for the military campaign.[15] The main approach of the English army during the Crecy campaign was to ensure that the COG of the French forces was significantly destroyed. This was done through the destruction of a significant number of French towns and villages while at the same time capturing those that were of strategic value. This process ensured that the French lost the advantage that they had previously held fighting within their own territory. The loss of Calais, for example, was a devastating blow to the French because they essentially lost the advantage that was involved in keeping the English troops at bay since it provided the latter with the means of landing more troops and supplies as needed closer to the battlefield. Moreover, Edward made use of the strategy of waiting for the French to make their move prior to moving himself, which was significant because it allowed the English to gain the upper hand since they could see and counter the French formations; factors that were not to the advantage of the latter. The raids against French towns, furthermore, increased the advantage that the English had because there was a destabilization of the French COG.

This approach is one that also considers the critical strengths that are required to achieve the intended objectives that have been identified. The use of the longbow as well as putting experienced troops on the field ensured that the war was won on behalf of Edward III. The French, on the other hand, relied heavily on troops from a diversity of regions, who were mostly inexperienced but had instead been pressed into service. Furthermore, the tax burden on the French people because of having to support such a large number of troops meant that it was more difficult to ensure that the forces of Philip VI were effectively provisioned. The result was that it created a scenario where it was extremely difficult for the French to not only move troops, but also gain an advantage over the smaller English force. Moreover, the devastation that the English had caused in northern France during their campaign had not only demoralized the population, but also created a scenario where the collection of taxes was quite difficult since the wealth of the population that could have been taxed was either looted or destroyed by the English troops as they undertook economic warfare against the French. Thus, the French COG was greatly diminished prior to the Battle of Crecy which favoring the English.

 IV.            The Critical Factors Analysis Method

The critical factors analysis method of COG is one that seeks to identify the desired objectives of the enemy. Through this process, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the promotion of the interests of the actor involved since there is the need to ensure that the COG of the enemy is identified and destabilized.[16] During the Crecy campaign, Edward III recognized the considerable power that Philip VI had, especially as a means of countering his landings in France. Furthermore, he recognized the French capability to not only collect more taxes due to having a higher population, but also field more troops against the English. Moreover, the French forces had the advantage because they were fighting on home soil, meaning that they could essentially counter the English as soon as they moved against them. therefore, Edward III’s strategy in countering these French COGs was based on a three-pronged move; landing the troops to desired areas by sea, undertaking a campaign of terror and economic warfare against the French people and finally, making use of experienced troops on the battlefield.

By addressing each of the objectives of the French, and the way that they desired to achieve them, Edward III was willing to make sure that he countered their moves effectively; essentially destroying their COG. Because he had a much smaller force than his opponent, Edward III established his own COG through the use of a strategy aimed at choosing his own battlefield and goading the French into taking the field against the English. This was done through making sure that he made use of highly experienced troops who were commanded by superior commanders that were veterans of wars in Scotland and Wales. The king himself took over the overall command, meaning that there was a unified command, which was counter to the French, whose commanders were the nobility who brought their own retinues to battle. Furthermore, Edward III ensured that the entire command structure followed his orders by placing trusted commanders, such as his son Edward the Black Prince, at the helm, which resulted in the pursuit of common goals based on the desire to bring about the defeat of the French and the acquisition of more territory in France.

Knowledge concerning the critical strengths and weaknesses of the enemy is essential in disrupting its operations. As has been mentioned above, the manner through which Edward III conducted his campaign in France is one that was based on his knowledge of the way that the French would respond. He took extremely pragmatic decisions when it came to the organization of his troops in order to counter the French forces that came against him. Furthermore, because of his recognition of the numerical superiority of his opponents, Edward was able to capitalize on the overconfidence of the French to such an extent that he was able to win a battle despite having fewer troops at his disposal than Philip VI. The Crecy campaign was therefore designed to make sure that the strengths of the French were overcome so that they would be forced into a decisive battle against the English, where the latter had the advantage. Without a consideration of French strengths, it is unlikely that the success that the English achieved would have come about. The campaign was an opportunity by Edward III to ensure that the French were significantly weakened to such an extent that they would be at a disadvantage on the battlefield.

    V.            Conclusion

In general, the diversity of strategies employed by both the English and the French were aimed at the attainment of victory. Thus, having an understanding of the various COGs of the Crecy campaign and the manner through which the various actors responded is critical in showing the reasons the eventual English victory. There was an attempt by both sides to destroy each other’s COGs in order to gain the strategic advantage. However, the English were better able to employ their strategy in such a way that they gained competitive advantage over the French by destroying the latter’s COGs during the Crecy campaign. The English were better able to protect their COGs from French interference, which ensured that there was the creation of an environment within which they maintained an advantage over the French until their victory and the capitulation of the latter following the Battle of Crecy.

---

[1] Carl von Clausewitz, On War: The Complete Edition (New York: Brownstone, 2009), 144.

[2] Dale C Eikmeier, "A Logical Method for Center-of-Gravity Analysis," Military Review 87, no. 5 (2007): 62.

[3] Richard Barber, The Life and Campaigns of the Black Prince: From Contemporary Letters, Diaries, and Chronicles, Including Chandos Herald's Life of the Black Prince (Boydell & Brewer, 1997), 13.

[4] Clifford Rogers, "War Cruel and Sharp. English Strategy under Edward Iii, 1327," Reviews in History, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b03/47d98f9abace69d7a1b6fc1c3b15c490c268.pdf.

[5] Michael M Postan, "The Costs of the Hundred Years' War," Past & Present, no. 27 (1964): 34; Charles Chandler, "The Battle of Crecy," The Journal of Military History 69, no. 4 (2005): 1198.

[6] W Mark Ormrod, "The English Crown and the Customs, 1349-63," Economic History Review  (1987): 28.

[7] John B Henneman Jr, "Financing the Hundred Years' War: Royal Taxation in France in 1340," Speculum 42, no. 2 (1967): 275; Edmund Fryde, "Royal Fiscal Systems and State Formation in France from the 13th to the 16th Century, with Some English Comparisons," Journal of Historical Sociology 4, no. 3 (1991): 236.

[8] Paul Solon, "The Road to Crecy: The English Invasion of France, 1346," The Journal of Military History 69, no. 4 (2005): 1197.

[9] Russell Mitchell, "The Longbow-Crossbow Shootout at Crécy (1346): Has the" Rate of Fire Commonplace" Been Overrated?," in The Hundred Years War (Part Ii) (Brill, 2008), 233.

[10] Scott L Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward Iii (Cambridge University Press, 1991), 53.

[11] Albert E Prince, "The Strength of English Armies in the Reign of Edward Iii," The English Historical Review 46, no. 183 (1931): 13.

[12] Yuval Noah Harari, "Inter-Frontal Cooperation in the Fourteenth Century and Edward Iii's 1346 Campaign," War in History 6, no. 4 (1999): 380.

[13] Mark Cartwright, "Battle of Crécy," World History Encyclopedia, https://www.ancient.eu/article/1510/battle-of-crecy/#:~:text=Both%20sides%20at%20Cr%C3%A9cy%20had,weapon%20on%20the%20medieval%20battlefield.

[14] Aaron P Jackson, "Center of Gravity Analysis “Down Under”," JFQ 84 (2017): 81.

[15] John A Warden, The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat (iUniverse, 1998), 39.

[16] Daniel J Smith, Kelley Jeter, and Odin Westgaard, "Three Approaches to Center of Gravity Analysis," Joint Force Quarterly 78: 129.